United States v. James Pressley, 654 F. App'x 591

Background

Defendant James Rogreiquas Pressley was convicted by a federal jury of charges arising from a drug conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy and sentenced to life imprisonment.
During trial, defense counsel reported that a witness heard two jurors discussing the strength of the Government’s case during a lunch break; the district court questioned the jury en banc and no juror admitted discussing the case.
Pressley challenged the district court’s handling of the alleged juror misconduct as inadequate.
Pressley sought to cross-examine a coconspirator about the sentence that coconspirator received for related charges; the district court limited that inquiry.
The district court attributed specific drug quantities to Pressley for Guidelines calculation; Pressley challenged the reliability of some sources used to determine drug weight.
Pressley argued the life sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable, claiming the court insufficiently explained the sentence and failed to adequately respond to mitigation/variance arguments.

Issues

Issue	Pressley’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Adequacy of inquiry into alleged juror misconduct	Court failed to conduct adequate investigation into reported juror comments during break	Court’s en banc questioning and outcome were within discretion; no admission of misconduct	No abuse of discretion; inquiry sufficient under the circumstances
Limitation on cross-examination of coconspirator about that cooperator’s sentence	Pressley should be allowed to ask cooperator about his sentence to impeach credibility	Such questioning is prejudicial and may be limited; district court has broad discretion to limit cross-examination	No abuse of discretion in limiting cross-examination to avoid prejudice and marginal relevance
Drug-quantity attribution for sentencing	Court failed to assess reliability of sources for amounts attributed to Pressley	Preponderance standard applied; court’s factual findings supported attributed quantities	No clear error; district court’s drug-weight calculation affirmed
Procedural and substantive reasonableness of life sentence	Sentence inadequately explained; court did not sufficiently address arguments for a variance; life sentence substantively unreasonable	Court considered §3553(a) factors and gave an individualized explanation; sentence within advisory Guidelines is presumptively reasonable	Sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable; presumption of reasonableness not rebutted

Key Cases Cited

Barnes v. Joyner, 751 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2014) (Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and definition of external vs. internal influences)
Robinson v. Polk, 438 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing external juror influence from internal deliberations)
United States v. Duncan, 598 F.2d 839 (4th Cir. 1979) (standard of review — abuse of discretion — for juror misconduct based on external influence)
United States v. Ramos-Cruz, 667 F.3d 487 (4th Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for limits on cross-examination)
United States v. Zayyad, 741 F.3d 452 (4th Cir. 2014) (scope of district court’s discretion to limit cross-examination)
United States v. Cropp, 127 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 1997) (prejudicial effect of presenting possible sentence information to jury)
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Guidelines calculations: legal conclusions de novo; factual findings for clear error)
United States v. Bell, 667 F.3d 431 (4th Cir. 2011) (preponderance standard for drug-quantity attribution)
United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456 (4th Cir. 2004) (court must find it more likely than not that defendant responsible for attributed drug quantity)
United States v. Heath, 559 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2009) (review for procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentence)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural-reasonableness standards; district court must consider §3553(a) factors and explain sentence)
United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 2007) (presumption that within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (district court must consider nonfrivolous arguments for a sentence outside the Guidelines)

Affirmed.